Tabroom.com

Marlborough Novice and Middle School Invitational

2024 — LOS ANGELES, CA/US

LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Rory Baskin Marlborough School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 5:48 AM PDT

hi! I’m rory and I use she/her pronouns. I’m a freshman at marlborough and debate on the national LD circuit (2021-current)

please add me to the email chain - carolinebaskin27@marlborough.org

thanks lucia for stealing my paradigm <3

general

policy > k > phil > tricks

tech > truth

be respectful and ethical - no racism, sexism, homophobia, cheating, etc. or you will get an L with the lowest speaks

I’m fine with speed and topic jargon, but please be clear and intentional with what you definitely want me to get down

do NOT neglect impact debating - weigh in your rebuttals, tell me what metric to use and why. throwing around the buzzwords of “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability” isn’t sufficient, and I won’t necessarily default to the most tenuous risk of an extinction impact

also, don’t underestimate the value of good case debate - I would much rather you spend a significant amount of time on coherent case turns than 8 underdeveloped off at the expense of any case responses

counterplan / disad

love creative das, especially if you can give a thorough and not docbotted nr on them

counterplans should be functionally competitive, I don’t care about textual and I really can't judge a competition debate

judgekick if you tell me to

lean neg on pics and condo, aff on process and consult

don’t read anything in the nc that isn’t of good enough quality to go for in your nr

theory / t

not my favorite kind of debate to have or judge, but almost everything depends on the round

be sure to slow down, impact out your standards and do lbl - walk me through what I’m voting on

no rvis, no friv theory. unlikely to vote on disclosure or hidden shells like aspec

insert rehighlightings is probably bad if it’s more than a couple, but I need to be told that in round. I'll be very sympathetic to a rh abuse theory shell - make sure that you're accurately and fairly representing the author's true meaning

I’ve read and am comfortable with cap, security, set col, and fem - for anything else, assume that I’m unfamiliar with the literature and be very explanatory

k affs should have a link to the topic, ks should have a link to the specific aff

explain the alt and how it solves the links. kicking the alt nuqs the k

not the best for a k v k debate other than cap vs. non-t affs

phil

I wish so badly that I was good for these debates! sadly, I’m not, but I’ll try. be extra explanatory if your framework is literally anything but util, and tell me why it excludes other impacts

feel free to ask or email me questions before or after round!

have fun, keep debate a kind and educational space

Alex Borgas ModernBrain 4 rounds

Jolynn Cai ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 1:16 PM PDT

General

she/her/hers

I debate for ModernBrain

SpeechDrop, Tabroom file share, or email chain at jojotiller1234@gmail.com are all fine for me. Please don't steal prep, and feel free to post-round me if you have questions.

Tech > Truth to a certain extent (don't tell me the sun is a planet)

Speed is good with me and clarity is a MUST, but if your opponent isn't comfortable with it, respect that. Debate should be accessible to everyone. Slow down on tags and analytics and pause for a bit between each off/advantage for me to change flows. I will say "clear" if you're going too fast or becoming unclear. If either your opponent or I have to say it more than 3 times, I'll stop flowing.

Give off-time roadmaps so I can organize my flow beforehand and try to make my job easier by telling me what arguments you're winning on. Please time yourselves, but I will keep time too in case someone forgets to start their timer or attempts to steal prep.

Flex prep is valid.

I flow cross-examinations (cx is binding).

Please don't be offensive - I will drop your speaker points if you disrespect your opponent or say anything racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. Debate should be fun and everyone should be able to enjoy it.

Prefs:

1 - LARP

2 - Ks

3 - Theory/T

4 - Phil - please explain to me the literature

Trix is a no for me.

LARP

I mostly read policy arguments in my rounds until this year. All your arguments should have warrants that prove your point or disprove your opponent's. I love good link chains and impact calculus.

CP---

I'm open to most CPs until they become borderline abusive (eg. spamming PICs) or they don't have a net benefit. I welcome 1AR CP theory (I default DTA, but if you argue DTD, tell me why).

SOLVENCY ADVOCATE PLEASE. I won't put weight on a CP with a single sentence and no evidence.

DA---

Clearly explain each step in the link chain.

Read whatever DA you want, these aren't usually crazy

Organize your 2NR.

POLICY AFFS---

"If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins." -Noah

I've been getting more into K literature since I started debating varsity, so I'm familiar with most of them like Setcol, Cap, Security, etc., and what those debates look like, but don't take that as a green light to forego any explanation of the literature or only use blippy analytics.

LINKS ARE KEY HERE. If you use a generic link, at least have an analytic of how the aff specifically links or it'll take a lot to convince me.

You should have a strong framework and still engage with the aff's content. Tell me why I should be evaluating your model of debate over your opponent's.

If you kick the alt, make it clear.

If you read hardcore phil, please explain the literature to me because I understand the basics of most phil arguments, but I want to hear the nuance details from the debaters.

Theory/T

Definitions and warrants are key in these debates.

Interp and impact debates go a long way here.

Default competing interps. Convince me otherwise.

I will flow RVIs but you need good analysis on both sides of this debate.

Speaker Points

Begin at 28.5 and go from there

Be yourself, don't be offensive, make strategic arguments. If you make any offensive arguments, I'm giving you the lowest possible speaks

+0.1 points for a meme about any philosopher of your choice at the end of your 1AC/NC.

Please

don't read tricks

don't read frivolous theory

avoid unethical impact turns (I will flow impact turns, but they shouldn't be offensive to anyone eg. racism good)

avoid 1AR underviews/spikes

TL;DR

I'm open to most arguments, but you must explain them to me. Spreading is fine, but please send your evidence if you do. Bring out your personality (like if you have dry humor like me), but don't be offensive and respect everyone.

Have fun with your arguments and don't take every W or L personally. Debate should be fun and educational.

Lila Daoudi Harvard-Westlake School 2 rounds

Surendra Dara Honor Academy 4 rounds

Norma Delgado Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:02 AM PDT

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

Nathan Fleming The Harker School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:20 AM PDT

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Gil Gandionco Harvard-Westlake School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 11:02 AM PDT

Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.

Email: sebastiangandionco@gmail.com

I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.

· Add me in the email chain before the round starts

· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow

· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.

· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate

· I’m more techy

· I like performance and K’s and T

· Framework needs to be clear and concise.

Kritik’s/K-Affs:

I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.

Policy Affs:

I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.

DA’s CP’s:

Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.

Theory/Topicality:

Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.

I dislike trick debate

Speaks/other:

My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions

Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much

Siena Grouf Marlborough School 4 rounds

Krizel Guansing Honor Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 11:53 AM PDT

Krizel Guansing (she/they)

PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN ASAP: krizelbrianne13@gmail.com :))) i prefer email over speech drop/file share. if you have any questions about your debate, you can also reach me here!

quick disclaimers/about me:

i am familiar with policy debate, but i'm still relatively new. i'm currently a policy debater for cal state fullerton (I also do IEs!) :)

for me personally, reading more than 4 off is not preferred. i am very much a quality over quantity person. i'm not going to warn against any arguments, just debate good and you will win my ballot!
i will switch between flowing and following along on the docs because of how i process information. i am 100% listening to the debate.
the thing i want to emphasize the most is clarity + argumentation >>> speed. i'm okay with speed, but make sure i am part of the chain and i have the cards. i have some audio processing issues so please please please keep this in mind. if you are speaking fast and it becomes intelligible, i will yell CLEAR once during the debate. also, during analytics, be clear. since there is nothing i'm reading, i'm going to have trouble with following. be concise. arguments will win you my ballot over amount of content.

Onto the reason you're reading this:

***I Have a 0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc. I will not hesitate to intervene when I feel it is necessary.***

FOR POLICY:

DA/CP:

this is cool. i like this. i will understand this a majority of the time.
impact impact impact

Ks:

again, i am newer to policy. if this is sloppy, i will be especially lost. don't assume that i will just know the philosophers/theory.
the lit i know best are fem, ir, cap, set-col, and identity, but just because i'm familiar with it doesn't mean that i will just know what you're talking about. the safest option for you as a debater is to explain it as if i have never seen the lit before because it's a very real possibility that i haven't.

Questions I need answers to:

what are we debating about?
role of the judge?
role of the ballot?

K-AFFs

my only ask is that you understand what you are arguing. i love k-affs that are done well and i should know what exactly you are arguing in terms of framework.
performance ks are cool! just make sure to tie it back to the aff.

K on the neg

if i don't know what the alt is by the end of the round, i'm not going for it! the way to win my ballot is being intentional on framework.

tl;dr: debate well and you win! good vibes. hey husam and max!

Jason Huang ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 18, 2024 at 12:48 AM PDT

Jason Huang

he/him

Email chain or Speechdrop are both fine

jasonhuangdebate27@gmail.com

Debates for Modernbrain

Argument Prefs:

1-Ks/Clash of Civs

2-Larp

3-Theory/T

4-Phil: I enjoy a good phil debate but you have to explain it thoroughly since I don't read a lot.

Strike me for trix

Top Level:

You don't have to call me judge, Jason is fine.

Tech > Truth("The sky is blue" is truer than "The sky is red", so don't go too far)

Speed is fine but as always, Clarity >>>>>>>>>>> Speed. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing afterward.

Time yourself because sometimes I forget

Defaults(changed with one sentence): No rvis, drop the argument, competing interps, presumption negates, theory is highest layer

If you want me to vote on evidence ethics you must stake the round, if you're right then I will buy the allegation and L25 your opponent; if you're wrong then it's L25 for you.

Cross ex is binding

Zero risk is not a thing

Don't steal prep---you can take up to one minute to send the email, after that every 30s is -0.2 speaks.

Please don't make me vote on presumption.

Ad hominem and/or making the space uncomfortable is L0.

Accessibility matters. I dislike debates and debaters that don't allow engagement. If you spread 6 off at full speed after the opponent reads a case at conversational speed, I will 100% give you the lowest speaks possible. It's better to have a real debate and win rather than foreclosing the space to win.

I love a good T debate, especially if the shell is well-developed and the 2NR isn't blocked. But when the shell isn't that great and the 2NR still goes for it, I don't like it as much.

Reasonability flow aff if they are topical.

Counterplans

Run any counterplan

"Cheaty" CPs are up for debate.

Condo is good and fun, but not really when you read 6 CPs and each has 5 planks.

I will not kick the CP unless you tell me too

PLEASE HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

I love a creative disad.

Do whatever you want, make sure the link chain is warranted.

"If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link."---Scott

Link shape uniqueness is true, especially for ptx.

If you go for the DA, give me the plot/story/whatever you want to call it and explain the implications and warrants. I've seen and given way too many disorganized 2NRs that don't persuade in any way.

Kritik

I mostly ran these arguments so I am pretty familiar with how these debates go.

Links are the most important, the K is only valid if the link makes sense. I hold a high bar for K that barely links.

Don't try to use framework to make the aff irrelevant, debate is not "you lose because you don't talk about xyz".

You need more than "Fiat is illusionary"

Kicking the alt is fine, just make sure you are clear. One line that says "we are going for framework" is not enough.

Please explain the literature. I have some confidence in my readings, so I probably understand the core of your ideology. But assume that I know nothing for the sake of debate.

Judge kick is the same for the alt

K affs

I think K affs are cool. But please explain: why the ballot solves, why your method is good, and why your model is good. Affs need to defend their model of discussion and some advocacy. Again, if the aff doesn't change anything, whether in or out of the debate space, I don't see why the ballot matters for you.

Plan affs:

"If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins."---Noah

Speaker Points

Floor is 28.5

I won't give you 30 speaks just because you told me to, the debate is yours but your speaks are mine.

Creative strategies, clear rebuttals, not doing stupid stuff, debate like yourself and you'll get nice speaks.

Random:

Debate is a community. You will probably see the same people every single tournament you go to, so try to be nice to everyone(it doesn't hurt). I get things can be heated and hostile but let's let our reason overcome the sense like Plato said. Make friends and have fun.

Don't be morally repugnant(sexist, racist, ---phobic, et cetera)

Joan Kim Hire 4 rounds

William Liu Harvard-Westlake School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 11:50 AM PDT

Harvard Westlake '25

Here are the arguments I mainly read in debate --> https://opencaselist.com/hsld23/HarvardWestlake/WiLi

realwilliamliu[@]gmail[dot]com -- he/him

My favorite thing about debate tournaments is the Matcha Latte.

"Debate is difficult because there are so many moving parts, its basically attempting to do hundreds of tasks at once, and even though any of those individual tasks in isolation is easy the combination of them becomes difficult." --- Scott Phillips

Argument Quality = Tech * (Truth / 2)

NOVICES. Ignore most of this paradigm, it's probably not going to be very useful. I love all types of arguments, so be yourself. The debate is not about me, it's about you. Have fun, be confident, love yourself, and ask me as many questions as you want. Trust your coaches, trust your friends, and trust the process of getting better. All arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact.

When I was in 8th grade, I entered into the 2021 California Berkeley Invitational. I went 0-6 and lost to literally everyone. Three years later, still losing to conditionality bad, but doing slightly better versus the kritik. Don't give up.

There are three important impacts in debate. Fairness, biological death, and social death. Education is a byproduct of debating all of the above. Impact calculus wins debates.

I am strongly against the speaker-point-industrial-complex. My average is a 29.5. +0.2 if you're funny.

Unlike most judges, I'm willing to admit that I subconsciously evaluate the debate after 1AC cross-X, so make sure you're answering your questions right. But since I need to listen until the 2AR, I love seeing fourth quarter turnarounds.

Here are my preferences in terms of what I'm experienced in. Go by this ranking if you want the most accurate evaluation of your round possible, but at the opportunity cost of higher speaker points.

1 - LARP and K

2 - T, Theory

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Here are my preferences in terms of what I'd enjoy most to evaluate and observe. Go by this ranking if you want nice speaker points for adapting, but at the opportunity cost of a 100% accurate evaluation.

1 - Tricks and Phil

2 - Zany LARP (i.e. spark, ridiculous process counterplans, et cetera)

3 - Weird Ks (that are explained well)

4 - LARP, K, T

LARP

The AFF wins because they can sense NEG silliness. Stupid arguments need stupid answers.

The NEG wins because timeframe is their best weapon. Every DA is so fast because no AFF contests it.

I think most arguments are super silly. Really? Economic decline causing extinction? Pretty sure islands will solve a U.S. Russia nuclear war. Aliens? Not sure if they're real, but who knows. Neil DeGrasse Tyson said we're in a simulation, and he looks pretty experienced. Events predetermined? Likely.

Magnitude and probability are inverses of one another. When teams get up and say they outweigh on both, I'm skeptical. If your impact is huge and causes extinction, it's probably not likely. If your impact is as likely as the sun coming out tomorrow, it probably is ordinary and insignificant.

K NEG

Ironically, these are the most sensible arguments in debate. But nobody can explain them and end up yelling graduate level school vocabulary at a bing bong like myself. I'd prefer simple language and clear ideas. Be reasonable.

You better actually engage the literature. You'll get clowned on for being a cool PoMo kid that's trying to uplayer everything.

I relatively am knowledgeable in: Pessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, Psychoanalysis, Disability Studies, Security/IR Studies including complexity and quantum. Everything else I have probably briefly or never read at all. But high-level explanations of high-theory that get me interested... that's a 30.

K AFF

Framework is true, and so is subject formation. Over various rounds, we formulate a sense of the world, which is why hacks like myself actually believe that Ukraine aid not passing will lead to extinction. However, from individual instances, there's no chance subject formation matters. I'm really convinced that the next 90 years of my life basically make high school policy debate irrelevant.

You probably can't solve any of your impacts if you aren't in the direction of the topic. Interpretations with no definition collapse into justifying truisms.

Learning about policy impacts is likely questionable. Critical discussions are key to reset old norms that are influenced by structural dispossession.

KvK

Pragmatic solutions vs root causes. Who has a more clear approach and who has the real understanding of the problem?

I think these are pretty boring debates, to be honest.

Predictability and debatability equally matter, but framing issues immediately tip the balance for me.

Creative T arguments get higher speaks.

Phil

LOVE!!!! Phil is my favorite. I love talking about the trolley problem. Would you rather pull the switch?

Theory

I'm brainwashed by the debate community, so conditionality is good.

AFF leaning on basically all counterplan theory except PICs.

Permutations with theoretical justifications > arbitrary, unpredictable interpretations not grounded in the resolution.

I love funny and silly theory shells. They make debate fun and enjoyable. By arguing silly things in advanced and fast terminology, we practice applying our skills in a diverse way. Comic sans? Meh. Calibri? Yes.

Teams should disclose. I find basically no defense against this interpretation. If you're good enough to beat back disclosure theory, you're probably good enough to win while disclosing.

Tricks

Go slower than usual and make your arguments make sense. But make sure they're still tricks.

Austin Loui ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 12:58 AM PDT

Hi, I'm Austin (he/him), I debate for Peninsula LD, happy to judge.

Email: austinloui@gmail.com

Phone Number (If I'm Running late): (310)-421-6805

General Judging Notes

I judge larp similarly to our lord and savior, Gordon Krauss, and k's similarly to his holy spirit, Jared Burke.

I encourage whatever way you would like to debate, that being said...

Arguments from best to worst:

Larp

Theory

Phil

Tricks(Please don't)

I like K debates.

Framework: Down to vote on whatever framework interp you go for (include or exclude the plan). Maybe leaning a bit more epistemology on the "plan only vs. exclude plan" debate, but am probably more persuaded by a "plan vs reps" interp.

Links: I like topic specific links (EX: Offshore balancing critiques) but also am pretty familiar and respect good IR or security links (i.e. realism or revisionism links). Have turns case for you links, and often, usually extend only one link and go extremely deep.

Alt: Explain your alt thoroughly, a lot of K rounds boil down to not explaining the alt and how it solves. Unless you're exceptionally heavy on framework, talk about the alt as much as you can. If you explain your alt well I'm exponentially more likely to vote on alt solves case.

Specific Topic Lit(s):Very familiar with theories of settler colonialism. Have an adequate understanding of militarism, feminism, cap, marxism, psychoanalysis (specifically Lacan), and basic IR. Unfamiliar with most disability K's and more specific areas of Afropess besides Wilderson. Post-structuralism gets confusing so I would love a good explanation in round.

Larp

Adv & DA's: Impact calc at the top is preffered. Usually timeframe first but I've run a lot of soft left aff's so I'm probably going to be more persuaded by good probability first weighing than others.

Extinction First:Even if you win extinction outweighs, make sure your own impact reaches that threshold (specifically skeptical of disease and 'keystone species' impacts). Genuinely don't think extinction first is true when compared to soft left framing (ex: Gloor 19 suffering first or Riley Rees' longtermism = eugenics card). Very willing to vote on calc indicts of extinction first in the context of soft left framing.

Counterplans: Default to suffiency framing. Default to judge kick unless uncondo. Persuaded that CP specific voting issues (PIC's, Multi-actor, Multi-plank, solvency advocate etc.) are a reason to drop the argument. For condo, don't make your counterinterp "we can have x number of condo" because I'll pull the trigger on arbitrariness.

Debate predictability or debatibility.

Limits usually outweigh. Skeptical of ground, don't think the neg has a god given right to things like the deterrence or assurance DA. Most justifications for ground are very sketchy. PTIV is more coherent than most alternatives, but cross ex is still binding, and can be used to garner T violations (maybe thats the best interp?).

Other Notes

Speaks begin at 28.5, then move up or down from there.

Speed: I'm fine with spreading, go as fast as you'd like, though during blocks and tags enunciate your words a little more, as long as it's clear I'm chilling.

Disclosure: I'm fine with disclosure, especially if its egregious.

Rehighlightings:"Insert rehighlighting if it comes from the original card text. If it comes from another part of the article, read it" - G. Krauss

"Compiling the doc" is prep time, so is flex prep.

I'm down to do email chain or speechdrop, but I kinda like speechdrop more (faster).

Christa Izel Mariano Honor Academy 4 rounds

Stephanie Marquez Hire 4 rounds

David Martinez Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 12:21 AM PDT

Debated for Downtown Magnets High School 2019-2023

Currently debate for Cal State Fullerton

LAMDL 2022-23 National Qualifier

NAUDL Quarters

LAMDL 2022-23 City Champion

Add to email chain: Davidm57358@gmail.com

Coached by: Jared Burke, DSRB, Toya, Anthony Joseph, Travis, Yardley Rosas, Elvis Pineda, Chris Enriquez, Vontrez White

Tech > Truth

For the larger part of high school I strictly ran big stick affs and strict policy strategies basically the usual things you would see in a policy debate.

Read whatever you feel most comfortable with

Specifics:

Case:

Case debates are truly a treasure when done right. rehighlights/recutting evidence WILL get you extra speaks.

Really a hit or miss. Reasonability O/W. Wouldn't really go for these types of debates unless it's clear the aff is very untopical. I also just dont enjoy these type of debates. That being said, feel free to run T if that's your strategy.

CP:

Love a good CP. That being said I greatly dislike teams that will read 3 CP in the 1nc with just the plan text or a vague card. I'm all for a good clash debate and really reading CPs in that way just kills a majority of the clash the 2ac can have. I'll be more sympathetic to condo arguments in that case. Plank CPs are fine, explain the progression of the CP and you should be good. Have a good NB or internal NB I think this is where most debates are lost especially when teams just cannot explain what the NB is.

DA:
Pretty ok with these types of debates. Be creative with your DA's will definitely give great speaker points for a unique DA.

go for it. I can understand and flow it. I think a lot of K debates become washed from either the alt debate or the fw debate.

K affs: To be honest I find myself voting a lot more on T FW/USFG and I dont think its necessarily because K affs are bad or anything but because I think teams need to really push on the idea that debate changes subjectivities a lot of y'all are letting these policy teams push you around. Theres some good cards out there and I fundamentally do think debate changes subjectivities but it doesnt mean i'll buy it if you do minimal work on it. Also a link to the topic gives you a higher chance at winning in front of me.

Speaker Points begin at 28.5 I do not disclose speaker points.

additionally will give extra speaker points if you can add some humor to your speeches!

overall, justhave fun. Debate is a space that we all engage in to learn and enjoy. That being said be respectful of the other team and be mindful of the language that you use. Any inappropriate language or behavior will not be tolerated and will be reported instantly to Tabroom and Coaches.

Asher Meron Harvard-Westlake School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 8:21 AM PDT

Hi! My name is Asher, I'm a Junior at Harvard-Westlake School. Made TOC first time this season.

I started Varsity LD in the second semester of my sophmore year and have gone to like 15 circuit tournamnents since (I'm pretty bad at debate). I think debate can be fun but also very stressful so I will try to judge and act in a way that makes it as unstressful as possible for the debaters. I mostly read straight nonsense (both sides) but I wouldn't recommend adapting to that. I have seen real arguments in debates before so I can probably still judge them. I have lots of knowledge on the 23-24 Jan/Feb LD Topic. Tech > Truth. Speechdrop.net please. ameron3@hwemail.com but please only use for questions.

TLDR Rankings

1 - Structural Ks, Good Theory

2 - Most Theory, Policy, PoMO Ks

3 - Trix

4 - Topicality, Identity Ks

5/Strike - Phil

Negative Kritiks

Generic

I love critical literature and if you think you are comfortable with a K you should 100% go for it in front of me. I think most good Ks should be read one off or paired exclusively with theory arguments. That's not to say I will vote on conditionality or a perf con neccesarily but rather I think it takes away a lot of legitimacy from your 2NR if 10 minutes ago I heard you engage in the same thing. I will likely visibly sigh or frown if you go straight from an underhighlighted Tuck and Yang card to the Consult Congress Counterplan. Settler Colonialism is my favorite K in debtate and I go for it often as a one-off K. I am familiar with pess and would probably like to see that debate.

Some Other Thoughts:

I don't mind really long overviews as much as most judges, just don't make my hand hurt
Several links in 1NC, Collapse to one in 2N and impact it out like crazy with connections to your theory of power
You probably don't get to 100% weigh case if negative framing arguments prove doing so allows you to be racist, ignorant, crisis-making, etc. I think you just need to win a reason why weighing the case or those representations/impacts are good for debate or for education.
***** I somewhat endorse Tim Alderete's um... unusual way of conceptualizing critiques as framing mechanisms and not advocacies. That would implicate a winning 2ar on a link turn to a kicked K which I think is fine. I think this could be really interesting I would just need to see a good 1ar - 2ar connection here. If you hit setcol and make a link turn while conceding the structural claims of the K, the 2ar can 100% for a link turn if the alt is kicked because both sides are agreeing that settler colonialism overdetermines every other structure so I should center my ballot towards addressing it. I think it just comes down to how many cards/args you make questioning the thesis of the K vs. questioning the links of the K. This is a strange way to think of Ks you can ask me about it pre-round if needed. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS PERMS ARE ADVOCACIES WHICH THEY ARE NOT.

PoMo

Very familiar with Baudrillard and Deleuze. I like Levinas and Derrida is mid. I like these debates but they are messy. If you are a novice/young debater probably don't read these because the round will end up irresolvable. For these debates, probably just win your theory of power and you are fine. Ideally links in the 2NR are contextualized as offense for the K and terminal defense to the case in order to conslidate my flow. For example: if you go for Baudy links are offensive reasons for how they engage in hyperreality + [impact here] + reasons why signs overcode the aff/mean they can't solve/turns case/etc.

K Affs

If Topical

I like these affs but they are often hard to win. One of the most important questions for me is that your aff will probably be a small reform of a larger structure so solvency is iffy. You probably need to clearly win the framing page or have a really flushed out root cause/turns disad or whatever 2nr goes for argument

Un-T Affs

Untopical affs are the weirdest part of debate for me. Like thinking about them on a logical level they really make very little sense. Most of these affs are solely written with the idea of justifying why they should be allowed to be debated in the first place. Like what do these debates really do is the question I am always internally thinking about.

Let's say the neg wins 10 straight rounds on T-FW against the same aff. The aff will probably either get more or less untopical but nothing has really changed and the circuit will not be more discouraged to read un-T affs because of my ballot so I probably can't resolve anything for the neg.

Now let's say the same untopical pess aff wins 10 rounds in a row. Realistically your aff is probably a critique of debate and the world and your justification for reading it is that debate has to change. So what happens? The Wording Committee sees you won a lot of rounds at TOC digital speech and debate series 2 and make next year's Sep/Oct topic Resolved: The United States ought to end the world? Sorry but probably not.

I can never really decide how I lean in these rounds because I think that Un-T affs are probably good for debate as a whole but probably made any individual round worse. Idk. I think if you are neg you should try to make a lot of subjectivity alt-cause based arguments. If debate is so bad then there are probably other methods for engaging in aff scholarship. If you are aff you need a good debate-key warrant, and explain why your aff is key for some spill-up or scholarship.

I have been on both sides of this debate probably around 5 times each this year so I understand both sides.

I think most TVA's probably fail because small reforms < structural change. However, TVAs are the best negative strategy in these rounds and should be well-utilised.

T is probably not a rule, fairness is definentely not an impact.

Please have a clear role for the negative if the neg can't engage at all and debate becomes meaningless under an aff model of debate then I will lean heavily neg.

Theory

Generic

See Steven Scopa's paradigm for some general thoughts

I know I go to Harvard-Westlake but I actually go for theory a decent amount. Mostly on the negative, mostly SPEC, and I don't think that theory is neccesarily a bad form of debate.

Have a good DTD warrant and you're probably fine as long as you're technical. If you're hitting theory a DTA argument or reasonability are the best.

Regress can be true and very persuasive but only in a models debate. If one side has made this specific debate worse thats very different than finding infinite tiny models of debate where we ask each other if we need 50 different accomodations pre-round.

Seperate in - round v. models abuse especially if you are the one answering the shell.

Condo

Condo is probably good but I will just evaluate the tech so I won't really lean one way or another. If the 2NR concedes dispo solves I will vote aff, please line by line standards instead of reading blocks. Condo becomes very persuasive when you just kicked 7 of the 12 planks in your nonsense advantage CP. Remember that 12 factorial = 479001600 and that many off is probably abusive.

Other 1AR theory

Theory about process CPs and such is probably not that persuasive because the same arguments can be used to beat the CP on an intrinsicness argument and I think these arguments are bad but don't make it impossible for you to debate.

Generic

I have gone for T maybe twice in my whole career because I think that T debate is incredibly messy. I hate seeing a T round where after the round the judge will go through, read every definition 100 times, reach their own conclusions, and then do a ton of other work. T debate inevitably leads to a ton of intervention which is why I don't really like it.

I will probably be 50-50 in these rounds even though I don't like the argument I obviously won't punish the negative for reading it.

I don't want to read a ton of definitions post-round that's just intervention

Trix

Indexicals and a prioris are probably not the best. Everything else is probably fine and I will kinda vote on anything I can flow. Have a clear DTD warrant if its a theory trick. Just remember I need to explain to your opponent why you lost so there needs to be a warrant somewhere on my flow

- East coast presumption doesn't really make sense to me (the if I tell you my name style) , if you can make it coherent im fine with it

Policy

I'm on a policy/larp/wtv u wanna call it team so I'm familiar with these arguments and go for them frequently. Do a lot of weighing, impact things out, be good on the flow, and you will be fine. Process CPs are annoying but I will probably vote on them so please don't mishandle them because I don't want to vote on them.

Presumption flips aff if an advocacy is larger than the plan or has a permutation extended on it in the 2ar.
A advocacy like a PIC without a permutation on it is smaller than the status quo so favors presumption. In a debate that comes down to presumption any advocacy is not competitive but absent an extended perm I don't know what to do with that.

I LOVE competition debate for CPs and lean pretty much 50-50 here. I'm fine with incredibly abusive counterplans but that probably raises a models question when it comes to DTA theory arguments for counterplans. On the other hand I love intrinsic permutations and debate about competition models (textual v. functional v. both etc.) is super fun.

Phil

Speaks + Ev Ethics

Will try to average at around 29 but will adjust based on tournament guidelines (for Marlborough I will attempt to average a 28). Spikes are probably ok so I might give you a 30 on 30 speaks theory, idrk. Higher based on strategic choices, lower if unclear, unstrategic, or generally make the debate very hard to resolve.

Ev Ethics is a stop the round thing not a shell. I will always follow along in the doc and stop it for clipping myself so don't make a challenge. There is a fine line between powertagging and miscuting evidence so please be careful with how you characterize evidence.

L 0 if you say the Gulf War took place. Such stupid arguments are just propaganda and should not be allowed in debate.

Debate should be fun before anything else. Please email pre-round with questions. Have fun!

Francesca Moreno Marlborough School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue May 7, 2024 at 10:26 AM PDT

Hi! I'm Francesca, most people call me Kika, either is fine!

Marlborough 26 (debated LD since 2021)

(she/her)

email: francescamoreno26@marlborough.org

General

First priority is safety - obviously no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia (most/any isms)

Please just be kind to each other. If you're not, it will be reflected in your speaks

please prioritize substance, make good strategic choices, and really stress the weighing!

policy > K > Theory > Phil > Tricks

tech > truth

default util unless told otherwise

Novices:

You probably don't need to worry about anything else on here, just have fun and do your best! Just a few quick things

PLEASE sign post! Be very explicit when you are moving on from off-case to case and vice versa

WEIGHING IS KEY - explain to me who feels the consequences of your impacts, why I should care, why it outweighs your opponent's.

CLASH- make sure you are directly responding to any offense your opponent brings up! You both have to defend your args and respond to those of your opponent!

PLEASE ask lots of questions. I'm here to help you learn, and if you have any follow-ups, feel free to email me anything from your round.

Mostly just have fun. This is a learning experience, and debate is hard. Props to you for showing up!

Counterplan / disad:

yes

I can't judge a competition debate

judgekick if you tell me to

lean neg on pics and condo, aff on process and consult

don’t read anything in the nc that isn’t of good enough quality to go for in your nr

theory / t

go for it if you truly believe

be sure to slow down, impact out your standards and do lbl, make sure you are explaining why I should care/vote on it

no rvis

prob won't vote on disclosure

prob won't vote on hidden shells

insert rehighlightings are probably bad if it’s more than a couple, but I need to be told that in round

I’ve read and am comfortable with cap, set col, and fem - for anything else, assume that I’m unfamiliar with the literature and be very explanatory

k affs should have a link to the topic, ks should have a link to the specific aff

not the best for a k v k debate

phil

prob won't understand, but u can try

underutilized tool, very good for boosting your perceptual dominance

use it well, it will be reflected in your speaks

reference CX in your speeches, especially if they make key concessions

Speaker Points

28.5 - baseline, I'll adjust from there

29 - great debate, some minor things, very solid

29.5 - probably one of the better debaters in the pool!

30 - probably not going to happen, if it does, I have no feedback

CX will help you

29 floor if u give your rebuttle speech off the flow

clearly docbotted speeches will recieve substantially lower speaks

Arianna Nelson The Harker School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 5:29 AM MDT

About Me

I competed in policy in high school and college at Copper Hills under Scott Odekirk and then at Weber under Ryan Wash. Both coaches heavily influenced my views of debate. For reference on what I'm most knowledgeable about, I always read a K aff that focused on the experiences of migrant women, but read a diversity of arguments on the negative, ranging from performance-based K debate to classic DA/CP/T strategies. I don't support the exclusionary and uneducational practice of deciding rounds based on one's ideological preferences. I am willing to listen to any argument and will judge it based on the competitive framing done in round.

Since graduating high school, I have coached and judged Policy, LD, and Congress on and off. 2023 - 2024 will be my fifth-year judging.

Congress

There are four things I evaluate when ranking, in order of importance:

1) Quality of your content: Construct your arguments effectively and efficiently. I define effectiveness by the ability to use credible sources, FRAME YOUR IMPACTS, display strong evidence analysis and introduce new claims and warrants for why we should pass/fail. After the first two speeches, each speech should have some matter of refutation. Efficiency is shown through clear and concise verbiage, sign posting, and only using repetition strategically.

2) Speech delivery: The best congress folks recognize that body language is more than half of our communication. The speech triangle works because it makes us use intentional movement in our transitions. If you don't understand the reasoning behind why it works and apply it to other parts of your speech, you are limiting yourself to the culture of "doing things because that's what other people do" found so often in Speech and Debate. Being cognizant of your hand motions, foot movements, posture and facial expressions and then using them to your advantage will set you apart for me, particularly if you demonstrate a large range. Project your voice. I strongly prefer that students do not read off of their laptop, particularly if they are doing it because it is the best way to have the most pre-written content available. In general, only reading pre-written content cuts you off from your audience in body language, doesn't translate well to spoken word, and limits the possibility of vocal emphasis. I've noticed that these speeches also tend to not be timed well.

3) Cross ex: Use your questions to establish presence and style in the round. Maintain control of the tempo of the discussion, meaning that you don't try to give a speech in cx or try to speak for your opponent. In my opinion, the goal is for you to get them to say what you want them to say without saying it yourself. Defend your points or set them up effectively, depending on when you give a speech in the session in relation to the cx at hand.

4) Round awareness: Demonstrate that you are capable of assessing when to speak, what arguments are important on the bill in discussion, and most importantly, what refutations or framing will be most convincing. I think all three of these are dependent on you asking yourselves questions throughout the round that determine how you change your behaviors from session to session. What hasn't been said? Who are my judges? If that representative has already said "these framing is going to clarify the debate," then should I do the same thing because I always do? What other formulaic behaviors do I need to adapt?

Policy

debatewrecksmyinbox@gmail.com

Add me on the email chain now rather than later (if there is one)

Basiz Biz

Time yourself. Tag teams fine. Don't be explicit about your racism/sexism when interacting with your peers if you don't want me to evaluate it. Evaluations tbd.

"Anyone not ready?" doesn't work in online debate. If my camera is off, then you can presume that I am not ready.

Clarity is a prerequisite for me flowing the debate. If I have to say clear more than 3 times, I will stop. Any instances of clipping will stop the round and be an auto loss.

Card quality is important in the sense that it shouldn't be cast aside as a) author credibility only being something PF discusses b) overcharged tag lines being accepted as fact and c) presumably having warrants for each of the claims that you are asserting. I will read the cards that are referenced in the last speeches.

Affirmatives

I think I have a lower threshold for presumption arguments. I usually believe going into a round that most affirmatives don't solve as much as they say they do, nor do they have internal link scenarios that are as cohesive as their tag lines would suggest. The first thing I look at after round is whether the burden of proof (however that is defined based on the framework of the debate) for the aff has been met.

If you are reading a kritik, I believe having a method is necessary.

If you have a topical plan - please write out the full version of acronyms under tags if they are not in the body of the card or your tags themselves. I don't usually research the topic prior to judging at a tournament, so there are some terms that may not be familiar to me even if they are a common phrase under the topic.

Framework vs K Affs

I view these debates as competing models of the activity. Debate is inherently competitive, but how we compete is also important. I am not easily persuaded by "you destroy the activity" impacts. I prefer arguments centered around creating better interactions, whether that be a dialogue, political, accessible, fair, educational, etc, and default to how that affects debaters. If you want me to default to something else, please tell me in your speech.

Kritiks

Connect the theories to events / experiences / history and the affirmative if you want to make it more compelling for me. Connecting it to the affirmative may seem self-evident with the K requiring a link and all (at least if you want to win), but in most debates I find myself not being told how the K relates to the answers the aff has given or certain parts of the AC. I'm not saying you need a link for every word they say, but that a link to the story of the affirmative is important sans an explanation of why the part you are critiquing comes before or outweighs other parts of the aff.

Counterplans

Be explicit about the NB in the 1NC. I do think some CPs cheat more than others but have not seen enough tricky counterplan strategies to have a strong opinion on whether some are just bad for debate. Feel more than welcome to inform me through a theory debate that has clear explanations of your impacts.

Disadvantages

I have a very vague understanding of Politics DA theory, so if you're going for it you should contextualize it to the round (ex. winding way, bottom of the docket, anything w fiat).

Theory

Enunciate as much as you can or slow down on your blocks for theory. It always seems like going bloop bloop bloop fairness and education is a common practice, and like I said at the top, clarity is a prereq to me flowing.

Everything is up for debate as far as what should be done in debate.

Topicality

My third-grade knowledge of grammar is not thriving. Any standard relying on English grammar tests runs the risk of my Google interpretation being incorrect.

Kitiny Phumchun Honor Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 1:38 AM PDT

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Elvis Pineda Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT

Experience: Policy Debate (2 Years, But I still made it all the way to Urban Nationals Gurl)

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School: 2016-18

Cal State Long Beach: 2018-19

Contact Info: elvispinedaten@gmail.com

In a nutshell: I'm a pretty open debater and I love hearing all types of arguments. Policy Arguments... love them, Critical Arguments... love them, just make sure to articulate your arguments because even something as simple as a Cap K are run differently from round to round. Uniqueness questions are good, Links need to be there, Impacts are vital (You don't know how many people forget to impact out their stuff... make sure you do because I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IM VOTING FOR, I will not feel bad voting you down if you have a great link story but no impacts) and I appreciate intellectual debate jargon. All in all I will vote on anything, it just has to make sense and you have to convince me why I should vote for you and not the opposing team (Cross-Analysis). I love debate; I believe its a form of academic expression and just remember to have fun and pour your hearts out on the battlefield. I'm not a point fairy but passion, effort and craft are highly rewarded as I highly value (as we all should) seeing students actively pushing themselves for both an academic and interpersonal growth!

K's: Know the literature, it'll make your clap-backs that much stronger and makes it easier to contextualize. Throughly explain the alt, I noticed that the alternative debate is always the least covered and if I don't throughly understand what I'm voting for... then the permutation becomes an easy option for me as long as I believe it is possible. LINK ANALYSIS WILL GO A LONG WAY... Just saying. I ran Queer, Ableism, Witchcraft and several CRT K's but I understand the post-modern ones as well (please don’t run baudrillard, I’ve already had to vote it up once --> Update: Twice).

K' Affs: I ran Critical affirmatives the majority of my debate career so I might already understand or be lenient towards some of the reasons why non-traditional affirmation might be good. HOWEVER!!! This doesn't mean that if you run a K Aff I'll automatically vote for you, I find myself voting on presumption arguments or framework a lot because sometimes the literature of the affirmative is so dense and either: A) I feel like there is an articulation issue (and thus disorder on the flow) because of the density of the material or B) The internal link chain which leads me to believe that the affirmative is a good idea might be fundamentally under developed.

Da's: Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. I like disads, make sure to be strategic, make them net-benefits to the Cp otherwise I do believe that the Squo is always a viable option.

Cp's: Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Have Net-benefits and show me solvency deficits (It'll make your life easier trust). No I won't judge kick the CP for you unless you explicitly tell me, i feel like it gives judge intervention way to much power.

T: Topicality is more than "aff is not topical". Tell me why that is bad? What do you lose access to? Prove to me why the aff's interpretation of debate is bad or abusive. If I can make those connections and you persuade me to prefer your model of debate, then its looking good for you and I'm very inclined to vote on it.

Framework: A lot of T applies here too, make sure to win why we need procedural fairness, why is the aff's model of debate bad for the debate community in general, Internal and External impacts are convincing, and also make sure to make those common FW arguments that prove you don't limit the aff. Framework to me also doesn't necessarily mean that "USFG means the 3 Branches of Government", even though its common and I don't mind seeing it, I feel like you can tailor so many framework arguments to work around the rhetorical offense affirmatives get with that interpretation.

Aff's: PROVE TO ME WHY WE NEED THE AFF! I need to know that there is a reason why you have to affirm what you are affirming and thats why you're doing it in a nontraditional way. Also prove to me why your model of debate is preferable to the neg's arguments. Just persuade me (Make me feel like I HAVE TO DO IT). In addition, anything performative should always be used... and offensively too. Don't waste precious 1AC time without utilizing it to the best of your advantage.

Case: I LOVE CASE DEBATE <3!!! I appreciate a good neg team that directly challenges the aff's warrants and their claims. So that being said... good case debate is appreciated and will be rewarded with higher speaks. Flush out them case turns (I'll gasp if its good)

Advise for the aff: Don't forget your 1AC, YOU SPEND 8/9 Minutes on it, please utilize it and utilize it as offensively as you can!

HAVE FUN! I love debate and I'm always happy and excited to watch y'alls debates!

GOOD LUCK!

Penelope Pressman Marlborough School 4 rounds

Luke Rascoff Harvard-Westlake School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:02 PM PDT

Luke Rascoff - HW '27

I like speechdrop more but if it's gotta be an email chain put me on it (ljrascoff@gmail.com)

note: I am unfamiliar with the policy topic as I have been debating LD this year so please give good overviews and explanations

-I've been doing LD for 2 years

-I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as its not offensive or harmful

- Tech > Truth but true arguments have a lower threshold to win

- I really like lots of judge instruction and weighing in the nr/ar

- I am fine with being post rounded, if I cant defend my decision then I probably made the wrong one

- I am ok with speed but be reasonable (slow down on analytics if you aren't sending them)

-sending the doc isn't stealing prep but don't steal prep

-I pay attention in CX, reference it in your speeches if you get a key concession

- Impact weighing and judge instruction is everything, I rarely vote against the debater who does this better

- Be respectful to your opponents and we will be chill

- Have fun and don't get discouraged

1 - Cps/DAs: Definitely the most familiar with these, I err extinction OW's but if the links are ridiculous that is a very good thing to point out

2-T/Theory: Friv theory is dumb and I probably will not vote on it but if there's in round abuse that's well warranted feel free to go for it. If you're gonna go for condo/pics bad it can't be a 2-second blip in the 1ar and a 2AR that only says the words "they dropped it" you're gonna have to fully make the argument. Won't vote on the RVI unless theory is friv. I prefer in round abuse vs theoretical abuse for topicality but my opinions here aren't super set in stone.

3-K's: I know the most about Cap and Security but I'm open to any K that is well explained. Link debate is very important, links should be contextual to the aff. If I look confused, i'm confused. T-FW is a viable argument.

4-Phil: It's not an automatic downvote but you're gonna have to be pretty clear. I know more about util, less about kant.

5-Tricks (pls no): I'm not the judge for this, it's gonna be an uphill battle

Email with questions!

Wyeth Renwick Marlborough School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 7:13 PM UTC

hey! i'm wyeth :) marlborough 2024 | harvard 2028

about me: she/her, debated ld four years, qualified to toc 3 times, 22 bids, won berkeley + st marks, carried around a ton of bagels

yes to the email chain: wzrenwick [@] icloud.com

novices and jv: have fun, be kind, and make mistakes! no need to read the rest of this paradigm - i'm here to help you get better, so don't stress <3

how to win debates in front of me:

a) i love debate, i think the research process is valuable, so i get excited when i see two people who are also excited engage in an activity we all enjoy. have fun, and warrant your arguments :)

b) i am not good at flowing!!! spreading is fine, and i pay attention, but if you are so unclear or so fast that i miss the arg you stake the debate on, i am comfortable with that being my rfd. sending 1nc/1ar analytics is a good practice, and one that i have always engaged in. if your strategy relies upon hiding arguments or getting your opponents to drop things, you should not pref me, and instead work on getting confident enough to engage in clash (i write this with all the love in the world).

c) racism, sexism, ableism, all the -isms are a no go. especially as a female debater coming from a girls' school, i am wary of debate's bro culture, and intentionally being kind to your opponent will earn you speaks. not doing so will lower them.

d) depth >>> breadth. more warrants >>>>>>> more arguments.

e) my argument preferences -

larp: 1 (2nr on the econ da has always been my favorite 2nr to give. condo is probably good, da + cp >>>>>>>>>>> process cp, and explanation, explanation, explanation is the name of the game)

k: 3, maybeee 2 (i ran some - emphasis on some - fem/cap k's/k affs that were all topic specific, but a lot of ppl laugh when i say i'm flex, so. i lean neg on fw, clash >>> fairness, and don't-weigh-case is probably hard to win in front of me. if you're going to run a k, i expect lbl, aff-specific links, and engagement beyond blocks) (also, y'all should look into postwork. seriously underrated)

phil: 5, maybe a strike (i will hate it and that will probably show up in your speaks. you won't be getting the benefit of the doubt from me, so you better be confident that you're really good at explaining why your fw doesn't collapse to util. epistemic modesty >>>>)

tricks, friv theory, disclosure games, hiding aspec, etc: strike me. fr. if torson or theis would be disappointed in me for voting on it, i will not be voting for it.

f) if you're debating a novice/trad debater, making the debate more accessible will boosts speaks. spreading is fine, but not going your top speed, sending analytics, running disads instead of eighty-two-plank process cp's or k's will all make me like you more. if you're gonna win the debate anyways, winning it kindly is always a good practice.

speaker points:

28 - 28.4: you're learning! that's a good thing - you'll get good feedback :)

28.5 - 28.9: you're a solid 3-3, maybe even 4-2 - very cool!

29 - 29.4: you're probably breaking - congrats!

29.5+: you're one of the best debaters at the tournament

most importantly:

have fun, debate well! this is your metaphorical pre-round fist bump :)

Liam Ryals Honor Academy 4 rounds

Isaiah Salgado Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:31 PM PDT

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

Lucia Sanchez Gagerman Marlborough School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 11:53 AM PDT

hi! I’m lucia and I use she/her pronouns. I’m a freshman at Marlborough and debate on the national LD circuit (2021-current)

please add me to the email chain - luciasanchezgagerman27@marlborough.org

general

policy > k > phil > tricks

tech > truth

be respectful and ethical - no racism, sexism, homophobia, cheating, etc.

I’m fine with speed and topic jargon, but please be clear and intentional with what you definitely want me to get down

also, don’t underestimate the value of good case debate - i would much rather you spend a significant amount of time on coherent case turns than 8 underdeveloped off at the expense of any case responses

counterplan / disad

love creative das, especially if you can give a thorough and not docbotted nr on them

counterplans should be functionally competitive, I don’t care about textual and I really can't judge a competition debate

judgekick if you tell me to

lean neg on pics and condo, aff on process and consult

don’t read anything in the nc that isn’t of good enough quality to go for in your nr

theory / t

not my favorite kind of debate to have or judge, but almost everything depends on the round

be sure to slow down, impact out your standards and do lbl - walk me through what i’m voting on

please no rvis, no friv theory. unlikely to vote on disclosure or hidden shells like aspec

insert rehighlightings is probably bad if it’s more than a couple, but i need to be told that in round

i’ve read and am comfortable with cap, security, set col, and fem - for anything else, assume that i’m unfamiliar with the literature and be very explanatory

k affs should have a link to the topic, ks should have a link to the specific aff

explain the alt and how it solves the links. kicking the alt nuqs the k

phil

i wish so badly that i was good for these debates! sadly, i’m not, but i’ll try. be extra explanatory if your framework is literally anything but util, and tell me why it excludes other impacts

middle school debate

everything above still applies if you are debating in the middle school circuit, just remember to focus on good argument clash, and be as clear as possible in your speeches, and answer all your opponents arguments. and of course, feel free to email me or ask me any questions after round!

remember to have fun, be kind, and good luck!

Sam Semcheshen Honor Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 17, 2024 at 5:07 PM PDT

Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a junior in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF.

Add me to the email chain: samsemcheshen@gmail.com

------------------------------------------

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Bad behavior will reflect in your speaks and in some cases possibly my decision.

Speed is fine (not spreading though lol) but I prefer slower debates, especially if we are online.

Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to rely on me solely.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.

HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but a lot of online people just start taking prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.

I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.

Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.

Some evidence things!!!!:

To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long pulling up evidence should take, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.

PF:

PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.

I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

I hate when people wait until 2nd summary to frontline. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up in ff and says that frontlining only in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.

Is defense sticky? NOPE!

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.

Other:

For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.

I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.

If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

Brian Son ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 11:28 AM PDT

Hi I'm Brian Son (he/him/any)

Background

Current circuit LD debater for Peninsula High for 2 Years.

Coached/Influenced by Gordon Krauss, Jared Burke, Joey Antonelli, Anish Ramireddy, and Adam Mimou but Gordon especially so my philosophy will likely reflect his.

TLDR

I'm judging novices so go for what you want, I think debate is a competitive activity that more people should get into. Add me for the email chain at brianson437@gmail.com

I can and will flow which is how I decide my RFD and THEN I go to the doc if there was specific evidence referenced.

If you want to post round/ask questions that's fine. As novices you guys should be asking questions on why you either won/ or especially if you lost. If you don't understand why you lost then it's easy to lose again.

Because of the fast rounds I give oral RFDs so as novices, please take notes or write down why you won/lost.

For any advice please refer to Devin Lai's paradigm

Judge Phil

Tech >>>>Truth

I default to

Util FW

Condo Good

No RVIs

Judge Kick Counterplans

T "up-layers" 1AR Theory

CPs only need to be functionally competitive

I’m not a believer in 0 risk because there's always a way to check the probability of an impact unless it's an elections DA from 2016 (you won't believe who won).

Debate is offense - defense; whichever argument I find to have the most risk at the end of the round will win.

If your arguments don't make too much sense, I grant it less risk. If your argument makes no sense then that's not my problem to solve. Basically, just make it clear what I'm voting on.

In Round Phil

Flex prep is fine but both debaters need to agree beforehand.

Debaters shouldn't lie or be dishonest (ex. if someone asks the status of a CP and you say the status quo is a logical option and they are confused you should clarify it's condo).

Sending the doc isn't prep but compiling is. If it takes too long I might look behind to see if there's an actual issue or the 1NC was too good and your frantically prepping out a 1AR doc.

Use the bathroom before round so that no one steals prep time.

I've seen messy debates before and I'm willing to intervene if there's harassment. I believe there's a difference between insulting the speech (ex. the 1AR was incoherent on x) and insulting/harassing the debater themselves.

Spreading

Yeah go ahead. If you do spread my standard would be being able to understand what you're saying without a doc to interpret the words. If for some reason you don't have a doc or just hate me then be very clear on signposting or else warrants are on different flows.

Speaks

I start at 28.5 and go up and down based on clarity, strategy (winning on an RVI or tricks will put your score lower and line by line increases it), and being persuasive (only matters if you sound unsure of yourself).

CP/PICs

I love CPs and PICs, I believe that they are necessary to test the plan and why it is key to the advantage. That said I default to judge kick and sufficiency framing for the neg.

CPs are defensive arguments, they should always be paired with a net benefit that gives them offense against a "zeroed" out AFF.

It's the negs burden to prove that the CP solves the case and why any risk of a solvency deficit is outweighed by a risk of the net benefit.

If you're AFF against a process CP, please go for either theory or perm do CP in the 2AR. I see debaters who ignore the competition side of these debates when I think they're easy to win for the AFF. As long as you prove that there's a single instance where the resolution could involve the CP mechanism, then that's enough for me to see the process CP as illegitimate.

K/KAff

I think critiques belong in debate and find the literature interesting. That said the 2NR should be able to explain their thesis without expecting me to have read their literature.

I'm more favorable towards letting the aff weigh the case against the k and TFW for "abusive" affs.

I'm a huge fan of having specific lines in the 1AC as links for the K.

Alts are usually stupid and probably fail. I'm not sure why having a new perspective would solve your scholarship found from the depths of reddit.

2NRs should weigh the K against the case and provide a specific impact for why the affs epistemology is really bad.

Performance affs are fun to watch but hard to judge. I wouldn't recommend it if you want to win.

Theory/T

Disclosure is good. I think even traditional schools can/should use the opencaselist to put in their contact info and round reports so that other schools can research to prep for the tournament. If your opponent doesn't disclose then show a screenshot in the doc for evidence.

Limits are legit for T BUT if you read T then explain exactly what generics you lose on. If the plan has an intent to exclude certain DA's then I'm more sympathetic but if it's more common in the topic then less so.

Although I do think counter-interpretations are a good method of being objective, I do think reasonability is a legit standard because it's a question of if the AFF is topical or not which means that if I feel that the AFF has upheld their burden of being topical enough then it makes sense to vote AFF. Then again, I wouldn't see why voting NEG for a better interpretation is bad besides substance crowd out.

The more stupid the theory shell the lower bar I require for the rebuttal like counter-solvency-advocate theory shouldn’t take too long to answer.

I'm NEG leaning on PICs and condo but more AFF leaning on process CPs bad or international fiat bad (basically the more abusive the NEG is the more convincing AFF theory is).

While PICs and process counterplans are more abusive that condo, I still view them as legitimate arguments granted you can convince me that your model of debate is better.

Things I will likely not vote on

My opponent did X outside the debate (not disclosure) - I'm a debate judge, not a principal

Spreading Bad - I think it's arbitrary and doesn't answer the real complaint most traditional people have which is clarity.

RVIs - You don't win by being fair.

Tricks - Unless fully warranted, I hate voting for arguments that are meant to be misunderstood or dropped.

Evaluate after X speech - I'll ignore this because it goes against the NSDA rules itself.

Elizabeth Su Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun May 26, 2024 at 2:11 PM PDT

Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her).

lizziesu425@gmail.com - reach out w/ qs

TLDR: second year out, mostly read policy but dabbled in phil. will vote on any complete argument (bar the -isms) but you should err on the side of over-explaining something if you don’t think I’m familiar

Defaults/changed with a sentence: permissibility negates, policy presumption. i'll assume whatever paradigm issues you do

--no strong argumentative preferences but I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. My threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is higher than it used to be and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on "I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr." If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of "they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff" isn't going to cut it. also "aspec they didnt" is not a real interp/violation.

--not great for phil v phil or k v k but walk me through it and we’ll probably be fine

--very good for cp competition stuff, politics, 0 off 1nc, T (but not from a backfile), and util v phil

--fine for the k if you interact with the aff and do lots of judge instruction, but not if you like 6m of overviews, buzzwords, and K tricks with 0m of line by line

--I will intervene in the case of in-round safety concerns (misgendering, etc.)

--evaluate the debate after the 1AC and no aff/neg arguments are logically incoherent.

--2ars should not throw everything at the wall and see what sticks

--debaters should flow the round and take prep/cx for clarification (re: marked docs - please minimize dead time!)

--will usually flow by ear and read ev later

--feel free to respectfully disagree with my decisions

Speaker points are boosted for strategic pivots and good ethos (read: smart CX, not distasteful zingers). If I enjoy watching/judging the debate, you will enjoy your speaks. Speaks will be docked for splitting the 2NR/2AR 5 different ways or otherwise making the debate irresolvable. Will ignore 30 speaks theory.

--it has come to my attention that i was a speaks demon/goblin this past year. i'll try to be nicer.

Sterling Utovac ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 5:44 AM PDT

Update MSTOC '24

firepowerx2@gmail.com

"We have Alex Borgas at Home" Alex Borgas at home:

I debate(d) for Peninsula, I won a few tournaments and broke at TOC. I qualified to CHSSA, somehow.

"I agree with my coach on everything" section - see Gordon Krauss, Rayeed Rahman, or Jared Burke

CX, then LD, then CX then LD.

My history in this activity is just Lay -> Phil -> K -> Theory -> Kant/Critical Combo -> LARP with varying degrees of success.

Operating Procedure

I like debate. Here because I want to be here. Will give your speeches full attention. Taken from Pat's paradigm, "That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster"

Definitely on paper in person, 60-40 towards paper for online debate. Indifferent to being on the chain.

How do I win? (MOST IMPORTANT)

Respect. It's good. But so is answering arguments in the order they were made. Tell me why you win.

Policy 2023-24

Background. Cut lots of cards for this, I know a lot of the core affirmative and negative positions on the topic. I didn't debate this topic as much as I wanted to due to circumstances beyond my control, but I'm confident in my adjudication ability as I've spent many weekends thinking about it.I worked with some younger debaters to various degrees / did pre-round prep / cut cards / drills. These kids ran Poly-Crisis and Degrowth.

Econ, Politics, and Elections need updated uniqueness evidence - reading cards from last yar when your opponent has one from last week puts you in a difficult spot.

Second constructive should leverage positions in your first. Sandbagging is terrible. You should present your best version of your argument as soon as possible. I don't understand why you need eight "econ high now" or "biden wins now" cards in the 1NR but you do you.

I dislike novice T debates because no one does any weighing or line by line at all. If this isn't you, this is a challenge to change my mind. I dare you, and if you succeed in this endeavor you will receive no less than a 29.1. Please don't use topicality or theory to exclude less experienced debaters.

2NRs should get to the case and 2ARs should get to the disadvantage -reiterating your points means nothing amidst uncontested points by your opponent.

Condo prob not that good but not that bad.

If you're reading like > 5 off case positions in novice consider why and how this will help you or your opponents learn... but also they have eight minutes to answer it so tough luck for them I guess? If this paradigm says anything it's that I prefer depth.

I do/did this. Topic familiarity high.

Will evaluate after 1NC; 2AR is "after 1NC"

Do anything

Phil/LARP > K > T/Th >> Substantive Tricks >>>>> Theoretical Tricks

Theory prob DTD. Make reasonability offense.

I'm the only person associated with my school in many, many years who gives a damn about philosophical arguments. Like, I read these. I also read the books they're cut from, and I think they're an integral yet unfortunately fading part of this activity. Cards are cool but like you don't need them. I really don't get the obsession with "I have a card and you don't" - like we're all smart people who can justify things...

William Wei ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 9:53 AM PDT

Email: w267ww@gmail.com

debate at peninsula LD for three years

I don’t think an actual detail paradigm for novice ld is essential, I debate at the national circuit and have familiarity with all the progressive arguments that novice will run. I think the most important thing is remembering line by line argument your opponent made and not drop anything. You should always extend your offense first and weigh it against your opponent's offense (impact calc).

I find in many cases debater just respond to the opponent argument by simply rephrasing what their case and evidence is without any interaction (or card and evidence just completely get forgotten and never mentioned later in the round). Tell me why your evidence is better and how their evidence isn't contextualize to yours and didn't answer it. This is why reading and understanding the position and topic you read can be very helpful.

Finally please be respectful and have fun. I can and will end the round if anything inappropriate/mean/hurtful behavior happens. Debate should be logos and not ethos, I don't decide the winner of the debate by who's a better speaker or sounds smarter in cx. Feel free to ask me any question after the debate even if you think my opinion is wrong, listening to feedback is how you learn greatly.

List of thing I would really like to hear from a novice round:

impact calc on the internal link level
impact calc overall and specially why timeframe, possibility, or magnitude (which ever your going for) is MOST important compared to the other, and don't just talk about your impact compare it with your opponents
case turn da or da turn case
a good organized flow with different position on different sheet (show me at the end of round and I will boost your speaker point)
Give me an order before speech
going for cp correctly
kicking out stuff when you need to and not just going for everything in your last speech
pls just call me judge not my real name pls it feel weird

if you want to see a funny photo look at Aaron Yi paradigm

OLD STUFF:

General

Run any argument you want (except very not familiar with trick)

speed fine, slow down on analytic

Tech > Truth, but true argument easier to win

dropped argument only true if explain how it interact with debate

Speech Point

Clarity, good organization, Polite = High speaker point

aggressive and fast don't mean high speaker point

Don't be rude in cx

You not suppose to ask your opponent did you read this or what argument did you answer other then ac/nc... YOUR SUPPOSE TO FLOW

less off with better link and longer card > 8 off

impact clac more then just prewritten block, be comparative, also impact clac the link vs link turn

timeframe important as it means your impact happen before other and turn

tell me what argument they didn't answer or didn't answer well that WHY that important and affect the debate

I love seeing argument about evidence comparison and what the card actually say.

Counterplan

defensive argument to solve aff and avoid da

condo might be drop debater when more then 1, anything else most likely drop argument only

I think perm most important

Kritik/Phil

I default to weighing the case, comparative world

l feel link and alt should be most important part and pls don’t forget fw debate

I think T should be read against K aff, all the other "argument" just too hard to win. Impact should be fairness

I never rlly run it myself, so there is that

Topictality

I feel interps is the most important part, caselist also important

both fairness and education important persuade me

not going to vote for rvi

Theory

in round abuse only, I might judge intervene depend on how stupid it is (ex: snoring theory auto ignore)

I think dislcousre theory is a real theory, personally I always send my 1ac file as soon as paring come out even if it 2 hour beore round. I think clash is never a bad thing.

random stuff for fun

Funny argument that stupid--------------------X real argument

sped everything----------------X----Slow down for tag

just debating-X-------------------trying to talk to judge to make them like you at lay tournament

How To Keep Ducks - Duck Keeping Tips For Beginners

Vontrez White Harvard-Westlake School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 7:38 AM PDT

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake

--------------------------------------

S Tier - LARP, Plan v K
A tier - Clash of Civs
B tier - K v K, Phil
C tier - Theory debates, Trix

D/F tier - memes

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

--------------------------------------

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

I default my prioritization to theory, T, and then substance. This can be changed if argued

--------------------------------------

Theory

Disclosure is probably good, can vote on the impact turn though

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs, DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Reasonability OK but explain why you are reasonable

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

--------------------------------------

LARP

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

New evidence in NR as long as it's a logical extension of the NC. I'm okay with the 2AR doing this as well to check back, but it may not be strategic.

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

CPs need to compete on a functional and textual level

--------------------------------------

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K.

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Contextualized link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts.

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

--------------------------------------

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Presumption isn't gone for enough in these debates

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

--------------------------------------

Phil

I think phil AC/NCs are interesting

Explain it well and you will be fine

Default epistemic confidence if the AC is phil

--------------------------------------

Tricks

Do not hide tricks

Answer them

Preferably not extempted

--------------------------------------

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

Max Wiessner Honor Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:49 AM PDT

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail .com

email chain > speech drop/file share

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

about me:

4th-year policy debater at CSUF (I also do IEs: poi, poetry, ads, ca, and extemp). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching LD and policy, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates. I would consider myself a K debater, but I’ve run all types of arguments and have voted for all kinds of arguments too

Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.
More than 5 off creates shallow debates. Don't feel disincentivized to add more pages, just know better speaker points lie where the most knowledge is produced. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, Toya, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, JBurke, Tay Brough, Vontrez White, Brayan Loayza, JMeza, Bryan Perez, Diego Flores, Cmeow

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

DA/CP combo:

CPs are fun. Impact calc is key, how does the impact of the DA supersede AFF solvency claims?

K’s:

I usually run/most familiar with arguments relating to set col, antiblackness, racial cap, bio/necropolitics, and/or queer/trans theory, so those are the lit bases I know best. Just EXPLAIN your theory as if I know nothing bc I might not (pls don't just namedrop a philosopher and expect me to know them)

Are we having a debate about debate? survival methods? education models? life? make that clear

K on the NEG: don't fall behind on the perm debate. Contextualized/specific links good. Severance is definitely bad, both on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to prove that it happened.
Policy v K: I love judging clash debates. I think these are maybe the best for topic education (unpopular opinion). FW should be a big thing in these debates. What's my role? What's urs?
KvK: I love a method v method debate, but they can get messy and unclear, especially in LD so please focus on creating an organized story. I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me, so I expect a clear explanation of what's going on to avoid the messiness/unclearness

FW v K’s:

I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts matter just as much as the ones that come from a plan text bc debate is ultimately a performance.

Education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate. That means (procedural) fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. Clash and education are more persuasive.

Counter-interps are key for the AFF to win the education debate. So is some sort of "debate key" or "ballot key" argument

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", and I looove creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level

if I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

- also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Misc:

DO NOT steal prep. The timer goes off, stop typing/writing, and (depending on the format) send the doc or get ready to start speaking/flowing.

I will not connect things that are NOT on the flow, I'm gonna quote Cmeow's paradigm here bc they got a point "I read evidence when I'm confused about something, and I usually will do it to break the tie against arguments, or I will read ev if it's specifically judge instruction and something I should frame my ballot on. But, I will never ever make decisions for debates on arguments that have not been made."

yellow is the worst highlight color. Don't feel like you need to re-highlight everything before the round, you won't be marked down. Just know if I make a weird face, it's the yellow...

and most importantly, slay

Hannah Wilson The Harker School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 1:31 AM PDT

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.

Aaron Yi ModernBrain 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Marlborough Novice and Middle School Invitational

2024 — LOS ANGELES, CA/US

LD Paradigm List

Judges